[fabsroman]

"Certainly it's more than adequate at extended ranges on virtually anything in the lower 48."

That is the statement that I have an issue with. I've been watching this thread for a day or two now, debating whether or not to chime in. Wish I had my Barnes manual here to see what amount of energy it recommends for certain game and what the .257 Weatherby is capable of at certain distances.

Aren't there grizzlies and moose in the lower 48? I would think that the .257 Weatherby is definitely not enough gun for either of these animals, but I could be wrong. Don't get me wrong, the .257 Weatherby will probably work in ideal conditions most of the time, but hunting isn't full of ideals. Sometimes, shoulder bones have to be broken and every once in a while a rib is hit. Oh yeah, then there are people that don't make the perfect shot ALL the time, me included. Every once in a while I'll screw up and the shot will be too far forward into the shoulder on a broadside shot, etc.

Enough gun for me is something that will break through bone on whatever game I am hunting and still be effective on dropping that game without a long chase. I also understand that no caliber other than an RPG or Howitzer can make up for an extremely bad shot (e.g., gut shot, rear leg shot).

The other thing I find quite funny is that you are not a fan of magnumitis, but aren't Weatherbys a magnum of magnums? The .300 Weatherby Magnum makes my .300 Win Mag look small.